MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406267549 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451587

Euclid preparation. LX. The use of HST images as input for weak-lensing image simulations

2025· article· en· W4406267549 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Scognamiglio, T. Schrabback, M. Tewes, B. Gillis, Henk Hoekstra, E. M. Huff, O. Marggraf, T. Kitching, R. Massey, I. Tereno, C. S. Carvalho, Alex Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced X-ray Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsWeak gravitational lensingAstrophysicsGravitational lensStrong gravitational lensingImage (mathematics)AstronomyGravitational lensing formalismGalaxyArtificial intelligenceRedshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data from the space telescope will enable cosmic shear measurements to be carried out with very small statistical errors, necessitating a corresponding level of systematic error control. A common approach to correct for shear biases involves calibrating shape measurement methods using image simulations with known input shear. Given their high resolution, galaxies observed with the (HST) can, in principle, be utilised to emulate observations of sheared galaxy images with realistic morphologies. In this work, we employ a GalSim -based testing environment to investigate whether uncertainties in the HST point spread function (PSF) model or in data processing techniques introduce significant biases in weak-lensing (WL) shear calibration. We used single S'ersic galaxy models to simulate both HST and observations. We then ‘Euclidised’ our HST simulations and compared the results with the directly simulated images. For this comparison, we utilised a moment-based shape measurement algorithm and galaxy model fits. Through the Euclidisation procedure, we effectively reduced the residual multiplicative biases in shear measurements to sub-percent levels. This achievement was made possible by employing either the native pixel scales of the instruments, utilising the Lanczos15 interpolation kernel, correcting for noise correlations, and ensuring consistent galaxy signal-to-noise ratios between simulation branches. Alternatively, a finer pixel scale can be employed alongside deeper HST data. However, the Euclidisation procedure requires further analysis on the impact of the correlated noise, to estimate calibration bias. We found that additive biases can be mitigated by applying a post-deconvolution isotropisation in the Euclidisation set-up. Additionally, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the accuracy of TinyTim HST PSF models using star fields observed in the F606W and F814W filters. We observe that F606W images exhibit a broader scatter in the recovered best-fit focus, compared to those in the F814W filter. Estimating the focus value for the F606W filter in lower stellar density regimes has allowed us to reveal significant statistical uncertainties.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAdvanced X-ray Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207